I find that people in general are drawn to film photography, even if they are not photo savvy. Often they like the high contrast stuff, though, even if it kills the tones. Perhaps something to keep in mind?

Blah. Not going to work unless it's real special.
Tintype portrait comes to mind. That's another galaxy. But using tri-x and merely printing it is not special enough. And if you're not a very good printer, the quality will be less then digital.

Youtube "The Science of Tintype Photography". The guy charges only 60$ for an amazing tintype portrait. Cheap and exclusive. That's the way to go.

A digital portrait is like a painted portrait in that the content can be processed to whatever end point is desired. The paying portrait sitter can demand (and should demand?) that the digital or painted portrait depicts them how they want to be seen. The downside of such pictures is that nobody except the terminally naive "believes" paintings and that same disbelief is absolutely justified in the case of digital work. One wonders, when looking at a painted or digital portrait, what the person depicted really looked like.

When Edward Weston announced that he would no longer make retouched photographic (not painted, not digital) portraits he look a large financial risk in limiting his clients to those who were prepared to show their faces as they were. For this I admire Ed Weston; and his sitters too.

Photography, the word itself, invented and defined by its author Sir John.F.W.Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society, Somerset House, London. Quote "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..". unquote.

I remember reading, a few years back, about a high-buck "celebrity" wedding photographer who made a point of using film. But that was 3-4 years ago and don't know what the situation is now.

You might be able to carve out a niche, but I think it would be difficult. For one thing, I think people now expect the over saturated, high contrast digital look. In any case, best to highlight the advantages of film rather than denigrate digital.

I made a point of recommending to my son and future DIL that they get a film-based photographer for their wedding about 8 years ago. I appreciate the results, but not sure they do.

"Far more critical than what we know or do not know is what we do not want to know." - Eric Hoffer

Blah. Not going to work unless it's real special.
Tintype portrait comes to mind. That's another galaxy. But using tri-x and merely printing it is not special enough. And if you're not a very good printer, the quality will be less then digital.

Youtube "The Science of Tintype Photography". The guy charges only 60$ for an amazing tintype portrait. Cheap and exclusive. That's the way to go.

My brother got married before digital was used much in weddings, and he is not into photography. However, at his wedding he made sure the photographer also took some black and white photos. So I do think you could offer film as an adjunct and make it work. Maybe not everyone would want it, but I'd think some would.

If your target market is people who post on APUG, you will have a definite advantage.

If the quality of presentation you are able to obtain from film (and other steps in the process) is extra-ordinary, than you may very well have something that really sells.

Otherwise, I'd say the answer is related directly to the quality of your professional lab.

Matt

“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

Blah. Not going to work unless it's real special.
Tintype portrait comes to mind. That's another galaxy. But using tri-x and merely printing it is not special enough. And if you're not a very good printer, the quality will be less then digital.

Youtube "The Science of Tintype Photography". The guy charges only 60$ for an amazing tintype portrait. Cheap and exclusive. That's the way to go.

Yea I have similar thoughts. Most people these days would not know the difference between a digital born print and and analog born print unless you take the time to point them out. Because of this it is unlikely that will see any added value.

However with something like tintype you have to do the whole process in about 15 minutes this gives you the opportunity to let the customer observe the process. Beating able to see the process and walk out with a one of a kind image would definitely be added value.